Agenda item - BH2017/00338- 39 Withdean Road, Brighton -Householder Planning Consent

Extension to skyframe (Retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

              Extension to skyframe (Retrospective)

(1)             It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Officer Presentation

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings delineating the proposed scheme. The main considerations in relation to the proposal were how it related to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the wider locality and the impact on the amenity of occupiers of the adjacent properties.  It was noted that an email of support had been received from a neighbouring property at no. 35 Withdean Road on grounds that the design of skyframe was excellent and any overlooking was slight.

(3)          It was considered that the character and appearance of the locality was varied with different architectural styles so there was no objection in principal to a contemporary design approach and the location of the proposal to the rear of the property meant that it would have a limited visual impact on the wider locality. The merits of the proposal were considered to be somewhat balanced but as it was a clear structure which did not have a presence in the context of neighbouring properties, did not therefore cause significant harm and approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(4)          Councillor Hill sought clarification of the differences between the previous scheme(s) and this one.

(5)          Councillor Miller queried whether if different considerations had been taken into account in relation to this application and also asked to see be shown the appropriate plans.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)          Councillor C Theobald stated that having visited the site she considered that sufficient account had not been taken of the impact on neighbouring gardens which were set below the application site and would in her view be adversely effected by the proposal. She was also dissatisfied that the application was retrospective which she did not consider to be acceptable. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, advised that the fact that an application had been submitted retrospectively did not of itself constitute grounds for refusal.

(7)          Councillor Miller stated that he was in agreement considering that overlooking would occur. Councillor Littman concurred stating that this structure went beyond plan and would be obtrusive. Councillor Moonan also considered that the proposed structure would be intrusive.

(8)          Councillor Hill stated that she considered the application was acceptable in view of the distances between the application site and neighbouring properties with adequate screening provided by on-site trees.

(9)          A vote was taken and the officer’s recommendation was not carried on a vote of 4 to 5 with 1 abstension. Councillor Miller then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed scheme would have an overly dominant effect on the neighbouring properties at 47 and 49 and would be contrary to policies QD20 and QD27 and would have a capacity for  a perception of overlooking leading to a loss of privacy to numbers 47 and 49. This was seconded by Councillor Littman. However, on a Recorded Vote, Councillors Littman, Miller, Moonan C Theobald and Wealls voted that the application be refused. Councillors Cattell (Chair), Bennett, Hill, Mac Cafferty and Morris voted against refusal. A further recorded vote was then taken on the substantive officer recommendation that planning permission be granted. Councillors Littman, Miller, Moonan, C Theobald and Wealls voted that the application be refused. Councillors Cattell (Chair), Bennett, Hill, Mac Cafferty and Morris voted that planning permission be granted. The Chair then stated that she would use her casting vote in support and planning permission was therefore granted on the Chair’s casting vote.

33.8       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Gilbey was absent from the meeting during consideration of the above application.